Row on Nostr: I completely agree 😄. Well, the fire poker argument was on absolute ethical norms: ...
I completely agree 😄.
Well, the fire poker argument was on absolute ethical norms: Popper said there were, LVW said that there weren’t.
So by what you’re saying you’re pretty much already aware of how it went: Popper trolled Wittgenstein, and he got (reasonably) mad and stormed away. Which is a win in my eyes, since Popper was not intending to collaborate, just doing silly nit-picking.
Knowledge (scientific or not) requires a priori assumptions, denying that not all valuable information comes from reasoning is… silly in itself... and easily falsified.
Well, the fire poker argument was on absolute ethical norms: Popper said there were, LVW said that there weren’t.
So by what you’re saying you’re pretty much already aware of how it went: Popper trolled Wittgenstein, and he got (reasonably) mad and stormed away. Which is a win in my eyes, since Popper was not intending to collaborate, just doing silly nit-picking.
Knowledge (scientific or not) requires a priori assumptions, denying that not all valuable information comes from reasoning is… silly in itself... and easily falsified.